Symbiosis: the nature of reality.

[ozziemate]

Symbiosis: the nature of reality.

Pre-amble:
Typically Symbiosis can be used in various ways but for the purpose of this discussion the definition is some what constrained to those relationships that are of mutual benefit and if the symbiotic relationship fails then so to does the entire organism or entity.
In other words we either have a win/win situation or a lose/lose situation or various degrees of both in between the two extremes.

Wiki as, usual, can provide a basic description that is reasonably adequate.

Definition:

The term symbiosis (from the Greek: syn "with"; and biosis "living") commonly describes close and often long-term interactions between different biological species. The term was first used in 1879 by the German mycologist, Heinrich Anton de Bary, who defined it as: "the living together of unlike organisms".

The line of thinking or should I say the test notion that led to the composition of this essay was:

“The power of one is virtually nil however the power of one-ness is omni potent.”

It is often considered when describing symbiotic relationships that one side of this relation ship is a host [ master ] and the other is it’s servant.
Often when describing relationships between human males and human females we see continuous debate on the issue of master servant or otherwise unequal levels of superiority in a relationship.
This is akin to describing “Cause” more important than “effect” and vice versa which appears to me to be an absurdity.

It is this issue of attitude and thus a path to further understanding that drives this thread . It is proposed that symbiosis with out bias regarding superiority is the nature of reality and that it is the notion of bias with in this relationship that is counter productive to the whole.
It is proposed that it is only the illusion of our ego’s that drives this bias to our distinct dis-advantage as a whole or collective.

Failure to grasp the symbiotic nature of our relationships means that we can allow a cancer to fester with in the whole indifferent to the consequences because we feel a certain superiority an immunity to the outcomes of that indifference.

A case in question arose just recently here in Melbourne. A tragedy by any scale, whereupon a mentally ill father went to our highest Bridge and threw his baby daughter of the bridge to her death.
Symbiosis in this case failed. As society allowed this mans condition to deteriorate to such an extent as it pleaded indifference to the possible outcomes.
Instead of supporting the symbiotic relationship with this man he probably was ostracized and castigated for his condition, left in isolation and probably abused by over medication and a serous lack of therapy.

Any member of a team such as that found in various sports, and business activities knows the benefits that can be derived by understanding the nature of symbiotic relationships. Governments world wide also tend to work with this notion in mind [ exceptions of course do apply]

So it is the truth of the symbiotic relationship that may be worth discussing here.
Points:

• That symbiosis is the reality behind all relationships.
• That this relationship is in reality unbiased and only our egos fester the illusion of bias.
• That understanding the nature of symbiosis may improve our attitude to our relationships

I feel most people can relate to the truth that when society moves as one it has enormous capacity to achieve results but when it moves as fragmented it becomes significantly weaker depending on the degree of division.

Care to discuss?

[SWM]

hi ozzie

i think i need you to explain a few things to me. what do you mean by symbios is the nature of reality?

when you explain symbiosis you talk about the relationships of male and female. i can understand the symbiosis in this context but i am failing to see how it is the nature of reailty.  can you put symbiotic nature of reality into a context for me.

It is this issue of attitude and thus a path to further understanding that drives this thread . It is proposed that symbiosis with out bias regarding superiority is the nature of reality and that it is the notion of bias with in this relationship that is counter productive to the whole.
It is proposed that it is only the illusion of our ego’s that drives this bias to our distinct dis-advantage as a whole or collective.

again i can understgand how symbiosis works in society, communities, organisations. but i dont understand what you mean by reality.

unless you are referring to the interdependence of all existence.

[ozziemate]

Unfortunatey I have confused the issue a little with the heading of the topic. Originally there was an essay that discusses the symbiotic nature of reality in more than just psychological terms but when I posted to this forum I failed to amend it properly to just refer to psychology...

The main thrust of this thread was to consider the unbiased reality of these relationships, and that if bias exists it is purely one of ego centricity or part of the power struggles that go on between the wills of individual peoples. Notions of superiority and inferiority sort of struggle.

Typically I know of symbiosis as being a relaitionship between a host and a symbiotic entity that aids the host in it's activities and in return receives some benefit for doing so. However it is the purpose of this thread to discuss the reality of equality between both the symbiot and it's host, when the symbiot has significant impact on the welfare of that host. life/life type impact.

It is not an especially strong proposition but one I thought may be worth discussing if desired.
Especially regarding relationships such as man and woman, employer and employee etc etc...

[SWM]

sometime ago i started a thread titled "what is reality". i never managed to explain my position very well in that thread and i think that was due to me starting from the wrong position.

this idea of symbiosis however provides me opportunity to divulge a little more of my experience of reality. it may seem very strange to some to hear the term "experience of reality" but when i ponder that phrase for a minute, "the experience of reality" my mind becomes acutely aware of some complex symbiotic interelationships.

when i intitally read the op i thought yes the symbiotic nature of reality this must be pretty close to my concept of reality. but then i realised ozziemate was talking of another kind of relationship. a symbiosis relationship of  existential entities.

the symbiotic nature of reality that i contemplate is a slightly different version of this. i hope to try to define somewhat here.

....

the symbiotic relationshp exists between that which is expereinced by the individual and that which is experienced by the collective.

each individual experiences both individual and collective reality. ie the individual experiences their own reality and experiences the collective reality. individuals reality is constructed of from their consciousness of their own existence. collective reality is constructed by the coalescance of the individual existences.

i am quite sure that the above makes no sense to most people but if any one can make snes of it please help me understand it.

[seekinghga]

SWM, what you call Collective Reality is what I call God.  It is the same thing.  Brahman or Tao could also suffice.  There is no difference from you or God, all just Is.  Divinity is within every person because we are composed of what is All of creation.  I hate to sound, meh, you know?  Every person is an avatar of one individual expression of God, or what you are calling the Collective Reality.  At least, that is how I took what you have said.

[oujdaboy]

Interesting 

[SWM]

we are all one, god is all of us, we are all god.

god is me, god is you, god is the dog pooh on my shoe.

joking, although i could happily argue this is true.
 

no seriously, i do agree. however god is not an acceptable concept to many people, reality is. we can talk about reality and attempt to define the interelatedness of human consciousness through reality without mentioning the "G" word.

much of my understanding has been aquired through spiritual experiences however to bring my understanding into the mundane requires that i forgoe the spiritual tongue and speak in a "language" more "accpetable" to the mundane world.

[S. Earl Martin]

I find the discussion of symbiosis in the nature of reality interesting. However like most if not all things there is a Yin and a Yang. There are forces that produce chaos and are in essence counter productive to symbiosis. Good and evil? On one level because we are all creations of God. As well all of creation is a part of God. God is in everything, but that doesn't mean that all things are good. History and religion teach us that there are many god's, but I believe that there is only one true God! All perfect, all knowing, all powerful. It comes back to the question, Why are we here? Say I spend my life learning or accumulating wealth or some other endevor. What is the point? I am going to die anyway. What should be my goal in life? I spent alot of time only caring about me and what I wanted. I only did things for others when I expected to get something in return. It didn't satisfy. I always wanted more. Then I started caring about other people and helping others. That satisfied. I didn't do it to feel superior or out of quilt. It comes back to symbiosis. When I was self oriented I was a chaotic force. Only caring about myself and winning at all costs. No matter who got hurt.  When I became aware of the needs of others I became a symbiotic force and produced harmony or balance. I knew instintually that that was the right thing to do. I have a terminal illness and have given a lot of thought to the after life. I realize it is not when you go, but were you go that matters. I know were I am going and were I am going to spend eternity. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you! One other thought. Even forces that appear to be chaotic have their purpose. The rock in the stream that deverts the water, impedes the waters path, but it may have another purpose we don't see. Sometimes what appears to be chaotic. May actually be symbiotic. Can it be both? 

[ozziemate]

sometime ago i started a thread titled "what is reality". i never managed to explain my position very well in that thread and i think that was due to me starting from the wrong position.

this idea of symbiosis however provides me opportunity to divulge a little more of my experience of reality. it may seem very strange to some to hear the term "experience of reality" but when i ponder that phrase for a minute, "the experience of reality" my mind becomes acutely aware of some complex symbiotic interelationships.

when i intitally read the op i thought yes the symbiotic nature of reality this must be pretty close to my concept of reality. but then i realised ozziemate was talking of another kind of relationship. a symbiosis relationship of  existential entities.

the symbiotic nature of reality that i contemplate is a slightly different version of this. i hope to try to define somewhat here.

....

the symbiotic relationshp exists between that which is experienced by the individual and that which is experienced by the collective.

each individual experiences both individual and collective reality. ie the individual experiences their own reality and experiences the collective reality. individuals reality is constructed of from their consciousness of their own existence. collective reality is constructed by the coalescance of the individual existences.

i am quite sure that the above makes no sense to most people but if any one can make snes of it please help me understand it.

makes sense to me, however "collective reality is constructed by the coalescance of the individual existences" is an interesting collection of words and meanings....hmmm

SWM, what you call Collective Reality is what I call God.  It is the same thing.  Brahman or Tao could also suffice.  There is no difference from you or God, all just Is.  Divinity is within every person because we are composed of what is All of creation.  I hate to sound, meh, you know?  Every person is an avatar of one individual expression of God, or what you are calling the Collective Reality.  At least, that is how I took what you have said.

Panthesistic views of wholeness may be more applicable. Unfortunately most ideologically based religions tend to apply finiteness to something that is essentially infinite and that canbe a tad confusing in this sort of discussion
But I agree with what you are saying all the same...

we are all one, god is all of us, we are all god.

god is me, god is you, god is the dog pooh on my shoe.

joking, although i could happily argue this is true.
 

no seriously, i do agree. however god is not an acceptable concept to many people, reality is. we can talk about reality and attempt to define the interelatedness of human consciousness through reality without mentioning the "G" word.

much of my understanding has been aquired through spiritual experiences however to bring my understanding into the mundane requires that i forgoe the spiritual tongue and speak in a "language" more "accpetable" to the mundane world.

>>agrees very much so...too many pre-conceptions about the G' word

One other thought. Even forces that appear to be chaotic have their purpose. The rock in the stream that deverts the water, impedes the waters path, but it may have another purpose we don't see. Sometimes what appears to be chaotic. May actually be symbiotic. Can it be both?

alot of this stems from the lack of understanding of why "suffering exists" and why it will always exist...[ the challenge being to manage it better - basically]
Chaos is essential to the development of order and a part of the process of evolution from one state to another, chaos, confusion then firming then consoliodation then stability...In physics it is a part of Metastabiity in that things are always teetering on the possibility of either negative-chaos, or positive chaos [ even though they are both positive in reality] but never stasis. IMO

It is a bit like saying that we can have symbiosis or we can have a more negative form in the way of a paracytic relationship. [ one that tis self destructive ]
However from a universal perspective the term paracytic relationships is only a preconception based on a lack of understanding of the nature of suffering and why it is essential to reality. [ >>harkens to some old Buddhist teachings from ages ago]

[seekinghga]

Unfortunately most ideologically based religions tend to apply finiteness to something that is essentially infinite and that canbe a tad confusing in this sort of discussion

Very true.  In all honesty, I don't even think we should be talking about God save for perspective and convenience.  To label God is to deny God--as definition limits infinity, no matter how clever the wording.
; )

[anaklio]

The unspeakable is called the sublime. It's easiest to convey the sublime through art and music.

@seekinghga: Do you think that art and music are therefore God?

[seekinghga]

The unspeakable is called the sublime. It's easiest to convey the sublime through art and music.

@seekinghga: Do you think that art and music are therefore God?

I think I already answered this, but...  You can take every single word in your vocabulary--or even Webster's vocabulary for that matter!--and still not create a concise (or unabridged) definition or depiction of God.  God is a sum to be experienced, not conjectured over; save for idle discussion over biscuits and tea.  

God would not sleep in Procrustes bed, you can be sure of that!

For the sake of discussion however I will say that your wording is better than suggesting that "God is art and music," though a holy man skilled in semantics could probably find flaw in either proposition.  It's like asking, "is a rock and a stream the planet Earth?"  Of course we both know that you would not ask if the Earth was a rock and stream.  That would be silly.  As well, art and music are simply one person or group of persons point of view of a particular phenomenon (spiritual or otherwise); like the teachings in the New Testament are one man's and "Wherever I May Roam" another's.

[edit]
The term 'Veils of Negative Existence' is relevant.  Just remember that negativity does not only imply an absence of something but a congruent move in the opposite direction from the "zero-point."

[S. Earl Martin]

I agree that language is a very limiting mechanism for description. Ergo " a picture is worth a thousand words." When God was asked to describe God's self. By Moses "Who should I say has sent me?" God chose to say only "I Am." Not I will be or I was. I believe this is the closest we can come to describing God in words. "I Am" ever present and omnipotent. Even this is only a human interpretation of what God is. How can the imperfect describe or understand the perfect? How can a finite being stuck in time moving moment by moment comprehend all of creation or the infinite?

[seekinghga]

When God was asked to describe God's self. By Moses "Who should I say has sent me?" God chose to say only "I Am." Not I will be or I was. I believe this is the closest we can come to describing God in words. "I Am" ever present and omnipotent.

But "I Am" is static.  I think that "I will be," as you cry against, is the more apt depiction.  (see John 1:1-3)  A word is something by which something is known to others.  A "process" if you will.  YHVH is not a workless group of letters.  It is the formula of manifestation.  Y the 'father', H the 'mother', V the 'son', H(f) the 'daughter'.  The daughter must find providence by becoming enthroned in the seat of the mother.  (i.e., magnum opus or Great Work;  True Will.)  If you are unsure of these terms or ideas just ask, though your own research will probably be more fruitful.  A word is an active, dynamic principle.  God is better understood as a process, not an omni-(insert word here) entity.  EGO-consciousness is overrated...

[edit]

I think I already answered this, but...  You can take every single word in your vocabulary--or even Webster's vocabulary for that matter!--and still not create a concise (or unabridged) definition or depiction of God.  God is a sum to be experienced, not conjectured over; save for idle discussion over biscuits and tea.

[S. Earl Martin]

Again we are speaking of something that is really undefinable so allot of this is semantics. Personally I feel that God being eternal the I Am is appropriate. I do not see it as static at all. It encompasses the Alpha and the Omega concept and the ever present aspect of the Creator. I will be suggests that there is a time when God is not and that is impossible. God is not bound by time or space. However if it is what is appropriate for you? It is like I have seen Jesus depicted as being of many different races. One culture might have a black Jesus another might have an oriental Jesus. Who am I to judge? As long as they get the concepts behind the belief I don't care if their Jesus is an alien. I am familiar with the term's you are speaking of to a degree. I respect your right to believe them and I respect my right to my beliefs. I looked up 1 John 1-3 and it seems to me to reinforce my belief that the ever present aspect of God is true. Again go with what you feel lead to do as long as your fruit is good then praise God! Peace.

[seekinghga]

Again we are speaking of something that is really undefinable so allot of this is semantics. Personally I feel that God being eternal the I Am is appropriate. I do not see it as static at all. It encompasses the Alpha and the Omega concept and the ever present aspect of the Creator. I will be suggests that there is a time when God is not and that is impossible. God is not bound by time or space. However if it is what is appropriate for you? It is like I have seen Jesus depicted as being of many different races. One culture might have a black Jesus another might have an oriental Jesus. Who am I to judge? As long as they get the concepts behind the belief I don't care if their Jesus is an alien. I am familiar with the term's you are speaking of to a degree. I respect your right to believe them and I respect my right to my beliefs. I looked up 1 John 1-3 and it seems to me to reinforce my belief that the ever present aspect of God is true. Again go with what you feel lead to do as long as your fruit is good then praise God! Peace.

But...  But...  Eh, you are most right.  If I ever appear to be disrespectful or condescending that's just a bad habit of mine.  I'm working on correcting it, believe me!  I guess it is from other boards that I posted on in the past, you almost had to be an a$$hole to say anything.  Excuses excuses...  Anyways, I apologize.  Namaste.

[edit]
Here is a quote from "The Book of the Balance," which I have read several times, and which I have a hard time applying to my personality:
"...with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him. "

[S. Earl Martin]

Not a problem. I didn't take it that way. Sometimes people who are intelligent when attempting to convey our wisdom seem to be arrogant. Even when that is not the intent. As long as we are being constructive it is pointless to knitpick. As far as pride goes the word says be careful when you stand lest you fall. Self importance and greed have been and continue to be in my opinion the biggest problems and hindrances to improvement to the world and human nature in general. Many wars and conflicts have resulted from these. One of the traps that can result from adopting any philosophy is when we learn a great deal we become prideful and think we know everything. I have made this mistake before. I have been around a while and have realized that no matter what I learn about a subject that there is always more to learn. I have had people who were just starting to learn something and I was instructing them when they pointed out something I never realized in all the time I was dealing with the subject. There is an old saying. "It is hard to read the label from inside the bottle". As long as you are producing good fruit. Just do the best you can. Courtesy and politeness are important, but so is conveying the point of what you are saying. He who would be greatest must humble themselves and become the least, or as little children. I really enjoy reading what you have written. It is good to converse with people who have meaningful things to say instead of all the nonsense I have encountered on many other "chat rooms" I have been on. 

[seekinghga]

Not a problem. I didn't take it that way. Sometimes people who are intelligent when attempting to convey our wisdom seem to be arrogant. Even when that is not the intent. As long as we are being constructive it is pointless to knitpick. As far as pride goes the word says be careful when you stand lest you fall. Self importance and greed have been and continue to be in my opinion the biggest problems and hindrances to improvement to the world and human nature in general. Many wars and conflicts have resulted from these. One of the traps that can result from adopting any philosophy is when we learn a great deal we become prideful and think we know everything. I have made this mistake before. I have been around a while and have realized that no matter what I learn about a subject that there is always more to learn. I have had people who were just starting to learn something and I was instructing them when they pointed out something I never realized in all the time I was dealing with the subject. There is an old saying. "It is hard to read the label from inside the bottle". As long as you are producing good fruit. Just do the best you can. Courtesy and politeness are important, but so is conveying the point of what you are saying. He who would be greatest must humble themselves and become the least, or as little children. I really enjoy reading what you have written. It is good to converse with people who have meaningful things to say instead of all the nonsense I have encountered on many other "chat rooms" I have been on.  

"Conveying the point," yes!  I'm glad you enjoy what I have written; different moods find me responding in different ways, though I still cultivate the different moods!  "Don't be subject to your experiences but make your experiences subject unto you."   As well, a former colleague of mine (colleague sounds more respectable) used to say that "ignorance and greed will ruin the world."  She might be right.

[ozziemate]

To label God is to deny God--as definition limits infinity, no matter how clever the wording.

A lot truer wisdom than you probably realise..IMO Well said!

The issue can be tracked right through the history of philosophic thought through out the ages.
To know is to not know, to hold is to loose what you hold.
The Buddhists used to call this the "Diamond Sutra"
The Chinese called it the "Taoist Trap"
Westerners call it "reductionism" [ from infinite to finite ]

and is the fundamental paradox of belief vs knowledge. objectivity vs subjectivity and a few other vexations we humans seem to like exploring whilst watching our fav. Sit com. on telly and fillingin forms at internet forums.
How this applies to the topic of symbiosis I am not sure....ha

[ozziemate]

Do you think that art and music are therefore God?

the limiting nature of this question is the point in question.
to answer yes or no would be incorrect as everything is God....[infinite not finite] IMO

"the creativity people demonstrate is merely a "token" expression of the creativity of the whole." and always inspired by the greatest artist ever...guess what/who that is?




"I am"

[voodoo scientist]

God is in plants?

[ozziemate]

God is in plants?

ha....God is the ink you are using to type on the screen with....[chuckle]

[voodoo scientist]

If God is everything, does that mean the natural sciences should be called divine psychology?

[SWM]

pagan traditions celebrate the divine in nature, if they began to study their faith scientifically, that would transform their faith into a natural science.

one day the serpent will catch its tail, and everybody else will stop chasing it. haha

[ozziemate]

If God is everything, does that mean the natural sciences should be called divine psychology?

The question is not so much the use of the word divine but in defining it.
Divine doesn't equate to sentience per see, but IMO more to the beauty and sheer cleverness of how "God" the universe, has evolved. In this sense divine does not imply religion but can draw it's definition more from a pagan or patheistic perspective. That being "nature" as divine.

[voodoo scientist]

If God is everything, does that mean the natural sciences should be called divine psychology?

The question is not so much the use of the word divine but in defining it.
Divine doesn't equate to sentience per see, but IMO more to the beauty and sheer cleverness of how "God" the universe, has evolved. In this sense divine does not imply religion but can draw it's definition more from a pagan or patheistic perspective. That being "nature" as divine.

So it should be called the natural sciences, but mean divine psychology? If God is everything, the natural sciences must be the study of God's psychology.

[ozziemate]

The use of the word divine is merely a leading impression and not necessarilly something that would be used in a text book for example.
To see the divine in every thing all the time is just a life style and way of looking where by the viewer always maintains the universal perspetive and not an isolated human individualistic perspective.

In philosophy a solid arguement could be made for natural sciences to be considered as the study of God's psychology but this would be more metaphorical or poetic than concise.

The rose picture shown could also be used to emphasise the symbiotic nature of we the viewer and that which is viewed.

[pljames]

pljames here,
 As I understand it, Aristotle was the wisest teacher on philosophy and said, "The only thing I know is i know nothing". Making me believe he had a sense of humor.

[pljames]

Excellent definition,
the symbiotic relationshp exists between that which is expereinced by the individual and that which is experienced by the collective.

each individual experiences both individual and collective reality. ie the individual experiences their own reality and experiences the collective reality. individuals reality is constructed of from their consciousness of their own existence. pljames

sometime ago i started a thread titled "what is reality". i never managed to explain my position very well in that thread and i think that was due to me starting from the wrong position.

this idea of symbiosis however provides me opportunity to divulge a little more of my experience of reality. it may seem very strange to some to hear the term "experience of reality" but when i ponder that phrase for a minute, "the experience of reality" my mind becomes acutely aware of some complex symbiotic interelationships.

when i intitally read the op i thought yes the symbiotic nature of reality this must be pretty close to my concept of reality. but then i realised ozziemate was talking of another kind of relationship. a symbiosis relationship of  existential entities.

the symbiotic nature of reality that i contemplate is a slightly different version of this. i hope to try to define somewhat here.

....

the symbiotic relationshp exists between that which is expereinced by the individual and that which is experienced by the collective.

each individual experiences both individual and collective reality. ie the individual experiences their own reality and experiences the collective reality. individuals reality is constructed of from their consciousness of their own existence. collective reality is constructed by the coalescance of the individual existences.

i am quite sure that the above makes no sense to most people but if any one can make snes of it please help me understand it.

[SWM]

Excellent definition,
the symbiotic relationshp exists between that which is expereinced by the individual and that which is experienced by the collective.

each individual experiences both individual and collective reality. ie the individual experiences their own reality and experiences the collective reality. individuals reality is constructed of from their consciousness of their own existence. pljames

sometime ago i started a thread titled "what is reality". i never managed to explain my position very well in that thread and i think that was due to me starting from the wrong position.

this idea of symbiosis however provides me opportunity to divulge a little more of my experience of reality. it may seem very strange to some to hear the term "experience of reality" but when i ponder that phrase for a minute, "the experience of reality" my mind becomes acutely aware of some complex symbiotic interelationships.

when i intitally read the op i thought yes the symbiotic nature of reality this must be pretty close to my concept of reality. but then i realised ozziemate was talking of another kind of relationship. a symbiosis relationship of  existential entities.

the symbiotic nature of reality that i contemplate is a slightly different version of this. i hope to try to define somewhat here.

....

the symbiotic relationshp exists between that which is expereinced by the individual and that which is experienced by the collective.

each individual experiences both individual and collective reality. ie the individual experiences their own reality and experiences the collective reality. individuals reality is constructed of from their consciousness of their own existence. collective reality is constructed by the coalescance of the individual existences.

i am quite sure that the above makes no sense to most people but if any one can make snes of it please help me understand it.

@pljames
This post of mine which you quote was made 3 years ago, i may have adjusted my position over this time period. I might need to contemplate some more the meaning of and my relationship to reality.